Is the Gun Community Parting Ways with NRA on Universal Background Checks? (VIDEO)

We all know the National Rifle Association is vehemently opposed to universal background checks (UBCs), which would require criminal and mental health background checks on all gun sales, even those made between private buyers and sellers.

In recent weeks, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has iterated the beef the nation’s gun lobby has with UBCs.

“Don’t you be fooled. There is nothing “universal,” nor “reasonable” about it [UBCs]. They ought to stop pretending and stop calling it what it will never be. Criminals will never be a part of it, and I have come to believe that the adjudicated mentally incompetent [won’t either],” LaPierre said at the 2013 Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah.

“This so-called universal background check that you’re hearing about is aimed at one thing: it’s aimed at registering your guns and, when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns,” he continued.

While many gun owners have embraced LaPierre’s logic, Washington insiders claim that there is a growing schism between where the NRA’s position and where the rest of the gun industry stands relative to UBCs.

Some of the gun lobby’s strongest allies are breaking with the National Rifle Association to support proposals that would expand background checks for private firearm sales.

In behind-the-scenes talks with congressional staff members and others, gunmakers, dealers and other Second Amendment advocates have offered support for more instant criminal background checks, buoying the hopes of gun-control supporters, including President Obama, who has put a top priority on extending criminal checks to private sales.

But is this true? Are pro-gun politicians, gun manufacturers and gun rights advocacy groups warming up to the idea of UBCs?

Well, quoted in the WP article was National Shooting Sports Foundation President Steve Sanetti, who said, “That’s more the NRA’s issue. From the commercial side, we’re already there, and we’ve been there, and we were the ones that have been the strongest proponents of an effective, complete background check.”

The implication was that the NSSF, the firearms industry trade association, had split from the NRA’s narrative of UBCs = registration = confiscation.

However, in a press release disseminated on Wednesday, the NSSF clarified Sanetti’s remarks, saying that “There is no conflict” between the NRA and the NSSF on UBCs.

In a video (which you can watch below) Sanetti says, “Regarding so-called universal background checks, or background checks that extend beyond retail sales or to private transfers such as a father passing on a favorite hunting rifle to his son, our big concern is one shared by millions of firearms owners — that enforcing checks of used firearm transfers between individuals will lead to the creation of a national registry of firearms, something that Congress has expressly prohibited.

“In addition, the current background check system would need to be greatly expanded at huge cost to handle the additional checks,” he continued.

In other words, the NSSF wants to strengthen background checks, as it says “Fix NICS” the (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), but not at the cost of a national registry.

This position seems to be one that is widely shared by many gun owners and gun rights advocates. Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, voiced support for a UBC bill in Washington State that would mandate background checks for all gun sales but also prohibit the government from keeping records or setting up a registry (presumably, sales records would stay with the FFL who processed or facilitated the transaction between the two parites).

With respect to the Washington bill, Gottlieb said, “This is a good compromise with real give-and-take.”

The holdup appears to be the registry. Coburn has said repeatedly that he will not back any bill that establishes a registry. Meanwhile, Schumer contends that a government registry would make it easier for law enforcement to trace guns that were used in the commission of a crime.

(UPDATE: AP reported that talks between Coburn and Schumer have completely stalled).

In any event, and to make a long story short, there may be some room for negotiating a bill that would expand background checks to include private sales (with certain exemptions: family, close friends, etc.) both at the state and federal levels.

However, what is abundantly clear is that any UBC bill that seeks to set up a registry or extensive record keeping is going to attract the ire of many gun owners and be opposed by pro-gun politicians, the NRA, the NSSF and the rest of the gun industry.

Familial gifts and any transfer to a valid CPL holder (issued by any state) should be exempt from any check. Even retail sales of handguns should be allowed to CPL holders regardless of where they reside.

The #1 problem is ONLY law-abiding citizens would even attempt to comply. Criminals will continue to obtain their weaponry from the black market or from items gathered in prior criminal activities (stolen).

I don't think that background checks are unreasonable. I think that there are some loopholes in the current system that need to be closed, or else the system won't ever really do what it is supposed to do. What it is supposed to do, though, is reasonable--keep guns out of the hands of those who aren't allowed to have them. Will it be 100% effective? Of course not. But if it helps, that would be a good thing, worth encouraging.

OK, Okay, I see the point. Not EVERYBODY should have guns and 100% ANYTHING is never going to happen, but IF this is to HELP keep guns from those who are not allowed by law, for whatever reason, then I would be behind a CHECK, not a registry, not put me on a list, no interviews. My DD214 states, "Physically fit, mentally unstable" because I had a mental break whilst enlisted, and it effected my well being, so I got help, and now I'm fine, have been for 20 years. BUT, I am VERY sure that if I was interviewed, I am open and honest, and that would surface, then I wouldn't be allowed to own a gun, and I have MANY, yet I haven't whacked anybody, don't want to. There is no NORMAL, so what do we set the guidelines to?

I am not for a registry of gun owners. But for a check system to work, it must be checking some list somewhere. That is, it must be checking some list of people of who are not allowed to own firearms. I have no special insights into who should be on that list--it seems like guidelines are pretty well articulated already. How they're applied is a different story, and I hope that if they're being applied poorly, we can fix that--that's very important. What I don't agree with is the idea that background checks are themselves necessarily a form of registry. I take it that that's the NRA view.

"If it help...." Do you honestly believe that a criminal will stop breaking the law on a daily basis because he doesn't want to break the law and buy a gun illegaly? Same for nut cases. If there is money to be made someone will sell it.
The background checks are only for the people who know they will pass it.
IF they pass the UBC laws then all they have to do is start charging a huge fee for them and they can effectively eliminate legal gun ownership. Except by the rich.
Don't think they will? In 1934 they imposed a $200 tax on a $3 silencer.

I want to slap the bejesus out of the next liberal who says "they aren't trying to take your gun!"

I think it is a simple point. IF there are some people who should not have guns, then we should not sell them guns. Will they get the guns anyway, probably. But we shouldn't sell them the guns legally. That's what a check is for, to my mind. Now if you don't believe that anyone, for any reason, ever, should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm legally, I don't know what to tell you--to me guns are like other dangerous objects that we prudently try to keep out of the wrong hands. Like cars.

Here is the problem with the current system: the way the FBI handles background checks is not completely automated and most is done by some very overworked personnel who have been stretched to the limit under the current checks. No funding has been proposed to upgrade this system to address it's current insufficiency much less if it would have to deal with the additional data that expanded background checks would entail (and sequestration is doing nothing to assist this problem). Mental health checks will have to require changes in the HIPPA privacy regulations and those are the most difficult to obtain yet the ones that might have had an effect in Arizona (Giffords shooting) and Aurora, Colorado.
After the country (and me personally) got bamboozled into Vietnam I stopped believing most of what the government told me. The "justification" for the Iraq invasion destroyed what little credibility it still held for me and I see no "change" in the way it's being run now. That said, I still support more stringent background checks because I KNOW there are people out there who have no business with a firearm and you know them also. Unless we have some method of weeding out most of these people the hoplophobes will think they have more justification for their attempts to outlaw everybody's guns. But we need to make sure that there is NO PERMANENT STORAGE of the collected data.

Bless you David! But think about it for a moment, you are going to trust the same people that bamboozled many youths into Vietnam and later the Gulf wars to not say one thing and do another with gun registration...er, I mean, UBC's? And, as a guy who sells guns as part of his job, I can tell you the system we have now does work, does prevent folks (who shouldn't have them) from getting weapons and largely lets law abiding people get on with their lives. To allow out bait and switch Govt (remember the line that no ones taxes would go up one dime?) to change anything right now would be kinda risky, dontcha think? And as I said above, Name one shooter, criminal or media story where the perpetrator first passed a background check and used a legally obtained weapon for their crime?

We r not frogs slowly boiling n water . So becareful who u piss off goverment. Stay strong america. N united a stone is nothing to a river but stones are... nathan anderson for president ill fix this promise hopefully ill be ableto tell u my plan for fixing this

Those who keep saying it'll keep guns out of the hands of those who aren't allowed to have them : It used to be that when you were released from prison you were given a gun. Now they want to target who they say are mentally ill and their #1 target are our veterans . They simply change their definition ...now if you've had a restraining order against you you can't have a gun...any idea how easy it is to get a restraining order? It's as easy as buying a money order or a stamp...
It says in our Constitution & BofRs that no body nor group of bodies has any Constitutional power to limit arms of any type to

Okay, but - End the monopoly on FFL access.
Open up access to the NICS by making it a free, easy to use internet database, that anyone with an internet connection or a smartphone can utilize. While we're at it, do the same thing with the FBI's stolen gun serial number database. That way, all buyers and sellers can easily protect themselves if they so choose.

You can already go online and find out who has a criminal record, employers already use it.
If you think that posting law abiding citizens on there wont be misused then you start by posting your credit card # And tell us how that works out. It would mean that criminals will be able to be more selective about their victims. If your not armed they wont have to wait till your not home, good luck with that also.

Seems anytime the left wishes to cram anything down our throats they just add "universal" to it. Universal healthcare, Universal preschool, and universal background checks (registration and tracking). It's a communistic approach of making everyone be the same and behave the same.

The government does not need to know everything about us or about everything we own. If I commit a crime then yes, but until then it is none of their business. 99.9% of gun owners never misuse their weapons, but universal background checks target us, not the criminals.

Background checks are one thing, background checks designed with the intent to create a registry are something else. It is obvious that the anti RKBA forces hope to create a registry and they will use it to confiscate guns if they get it..

While so many touted "universal background checkss as the best solution, I was worried. We already have an instant background check system. What's different? Turns out that "the devil is in the details", in the form of permanent record keeping - which equates to nationwide registration - the first step toward confiscation...

ALL background checks, ALL federal gun laws are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights/2nd amendment is aimed squarely and only at reducing the power of the Feds. Under the 10th amendment states can require background checks, deny guns to felons, the mentally ill, the blind, etc. -- the Feds can't but states can.

Criminals are just that, they don't follow laws, so what makes people think they are going to register their guns, or do a background check, all it's going to do is raise the "street price" of guns and make them even more rich and powerful. Politicians are nothing more than followers. They have zero back bone, and the people of the US and doing the same. We need to remind them that they work for us, not the other way around!!!

I AM NONE OF ANYONES BUSINESS! And you are not mine!, I know people who shouldn't have guns do, but why make it harder for those who can have them and don't? I agree, we can't stop EVERY stupid, mentally ill, angry, individual who wants a gun, but MY having one should not matter to anyone. Now, if I wanted a new one, I shouldn't be treated like a criminal before hand.